Hillary Clinton calls for ban on use of private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan

[subsuelo]

Democracy Now Blog

On Thursday, Jeremy Scahill, Democracy Now! correspondent and author of “Blackwater,” reported that Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama would not “rule out” using private military companies like Blackwater Worldwide in Iraq. Hours later, rival candidate Hillary Clinton called for a ban on the use of private contractors in Iraq and Afghanistan. In a statement posted on her website, Clinton said she would co-sponsor a measure to ban the use of Blackwater and other private military firms.


____________________

Overall I am an Obama supporter but Hillary gets props for this (even if it's now too late to try and woo the progressive left)

[easy_b94]

1. mark penn is going to be upset

[WillYourVoteBCounted]

24. will Hillary "reject and denounce" Mark "Blackwater" Penn? n/t

[JimGinPA]

2. A Little Late, And Certainly Not Politically Motivated I'm Sure

:eyes:

[maximusveritas]

7. She'll fool the idiots who haven't been paying attention

Anyone who even knows the slightest bit about this will know Obama's been strong on this issue while Hillary has been silent until now, when she sees a political advantage. It's sickening.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. hahaha you have been so duped ....read......

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

[bellasgrams]

18. BO said he WOULD use private contractors. But I admit most

wouldn't know because he doesn't like to talk issues, just slogans

[ElsewheresDaughter]

20. exactly he just likes "hope" words and never talks about issues and his stand

[maximusveritas]

23. I guess you missed this

http://obama.senate.gov/press/070928-obama_iraq_secu/

Last night, the United States Senate accepted an amendment to the Defense Department Authorization bill introduced by U.S. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) that will require federal departments to compile and report information to Congress on the role of private security contractors in Iraq.

Why has Hillary only discovered this issue now? She's been silent on it, but suddenly when she sees a political opportunity, she takes a stand. That's nice.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

26. ahhh a vanity ammendment ...what is the status of this piece of legislation ?

[Occam Bandage]

27. LMAO. Only in your mind would a campaign-trail statement by a losing candidate be more valid

than an actual amendment to an actual bill.

[Lucinda]

28. She has spoken about this before. Link from 10-5-2007:

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1007/6219.html

Clinton, meanwhile, has — like most other leading Democrats — been a sharp critic of Blackwater, and of the Bush administration’s use of private military contractors in general.

“Let's end outsourcing our government to companies like Blackwater and hold the contractor accountable,” she said on Sept. 30 in Oakland, Calif., according to the San Jose Mercury News.

Wolfson yesterday reiterated that stance.

“Sen. Clinton believes Blackwater must be held accountable for its actions and has laid out a detailed proposal to sharply reduce the number of contractors employed by the federal government by 500,000,” he said. “She has repeatedly stated her concern that such contractors are not as accountable as federal employees.”

[maximusveritas]

30. Got a link? I couldn't find anything

I'm sure she's talked about it since it was a big issue, but she hasn't really made it a focal point like Obama has and hasn't produced any legislation on it.

[Lucinda]

32. Yep. I just edited to add it. I heard her speak before the Penn /Blackwater flap

but this link has her on the record from last Oct.

[KittyWampus]

33. She forgets that her husband privatized the military, continuing the trend started w/Reagan

[Iceburg]

42. She announced this at least 2 months ago and repeated it during

her Hallmark townhall meeting.
Get a grip Obama supporters and step outside your bubble...you really do sound pathetic.

[fascisthunter]

3. I Agree with Her on This BIGTIME!

Obama should wise up on this issue.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

21. here is Obama position on this issue........

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

[fascisthunter]

37. Bad

[Cogito ergo doleo]

4. Definitely props for this. Hope Obama will do same.

[BonnieJW]

5. I agree with her as well, but

we're going to have to use them because there doesn't seem to be enough soldiers to fill all the slots. Obama wants to pass a law making contractors accountable under the law, which they are not at present.

[sandnsea]

6. It would cripple the military

I sincerely hope Obama doesn't fall for this. It's possible to phase out private contractors, but it can't be accomplished over the short term, certainly not by next year. We don't have enough troops.

[eleny]

8. I'm pretty sure I saw Obama say that private contractors were out

I'd like to know when Scahill learned different. I'm a big fan of Scahill's work and trust his judgment on this. I'd just like to see Obama quoted so I can get after his ass via the campaign. This does not sit well with me at all. Hillary is on the right side of this issue if it's as Scahill portrays our candidates' views.

I understand that some private contracting makes sense. But soldier of fortune activities should be forbidden.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

12. wrong ...here is Obama's Position on Mercenaries.............

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

[eleny]

19. The article implies that he wants to use them for diplomatic security

I don't know if, given how they've acted in Iraq, that this makes sense. I'd only accept our troops being responsible for diplomatic security instead of any soldier of fortune outfit.

As far as I'm concerned, the only activities given to private companies ought to be outside the scope of military duties. In my book, securing embassies should be done by branches of our armed services.

I'm sure I saw Obama speaking on tv where he said something different. But I could be wrong - it's been a long campaign season. Thanks so much for the link!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

22. he'll keep something that Bush signed into effect through an Executive Order?

something so evil and part of his cronies estates?

[eleny]

35. Not good, not good at all

[blm]

9. Yeah - I remember her saying exactly this many times over the last few years.LOL

Surely people don't believe she just thought it would be a good idea only the last couple of days, right?

Would Clintons do anything so blatantly political?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

10. Obama likes the mercenaries.......and has said he will keep them....

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080317/scahill

[TwilightGardener]

11. We don't have the troops. I disagree with this--unfortunately, we

do rely on these contractors, because of the way this war has been totally mismanaged--it's not doable, and the DoD will probably tell her that. What we NEED to do is hold the private security firms accountable to the law, and regulate them better.

[Blue State Bandit]

13. But she would have no problem...

using them at home? Why just Iraq and Afghanistan?

What about other private security (merc army) firms?

I got one, how about curbing their recruiting methods

that have gutted our military?

Sounds hollow to me. And let's not forget, it is her

adviser, Mark Penn who's lobbying firm has helped

to shield Blackwater from congressional interference

by prepping Erik Prince for his testimony to Congress.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

15. Bush signed an Excutive Order making these private mercenaries possible...none got to vote on it

[Blue State Bandit]

29. Here's a hair brain idea....

Would it be possible, with an executive order, backed up by Congress, and implemented by, say, the Commerce Secretary, ordering the seizure of Blackwater and folding the company into the military similar to Truman's Youngstown Steel seizure?

The two big differences from Truman's move is that Blackwater's actions could be deemed as a threat to national security, a loop-hole breach of pose-comatatis, and could gain the backing of Congress (SCOTUS would be the only hurdle).

STATEMENT OF PROFESSOR KEN GORMLEY
BEFORE THE SENATE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE

Two weeks later, the Court handed down its 6 to 3 decision, that amounted to a stinging rebuke of President Truman. Justice Hugo Black, who wrote for the majority, declared that as broad as the President's war powers might be, and no matter how broadly the Court might interpret the notion of "theatre of war," seizing private property at home was stretching it too far. If anything, this was a matter for Congress, which has the power of eminent domain and to make laws governing domestic matters. Youngstown Sheet and Tube Co. v. Sawyer, 343 U.S. 579 (1952).

-snip-

In eloquent fashion Jackson laid out a spectrum; three different levels of Presidential power that existed in our Constitutional system. And that was the legacy of the Steel Seizure decision. 343 U.S. at 634 (Jackson, J., concurring).

In the first category, when the President acts pursuant to express or implied authorization of Congress, his powers are strongest. He is acting based upon whatever powers he has (inherently) in the Constitution, plus whatever power Congress is allowed to delegate him. In the second category, when the President acts where Congress has neither granted nor denied authority, he is in a middle ground. He must rely on his own powers in the Constitution; but there is a "zone of twilight" where he and Congress can comfortably overlap. In the third category, where the President acts in a manner incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress, his power is at lowest ebb. He can rely only on his own powers, the Constitution=s powers granted to Congress. Here, the "equilibrium" of our system of separation of powers is at stake; so the courts must be leery when he ventures into this danger zone. Id. at 635-38.

In this case, Justice Jackson concluded, President Truman was in the third, weakest category. The Constitution did not specifically or even implicitly authorize him to seize private property on U.S. soil. And Congress hadn't given him that power; in fact, at the time it debated the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, it specifically rejected an amendment that would have allowed the President to seize businesses in times of emergency. The President's powers were at their nadir here. Id. at 640.

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1770&wit_id=5228

[ElsewheresDaughter]

34. so we agree that they should be banned right?

[Blue State Bandit]

36. Absolutely! As a private entity, it is appalling.

But I think that we should start thinking about tangible solutions.

Just banning them will not make them go away. They need to be dismantles from within, and the employees should be given the choice (to an extent) to continue in their line of work.

This group in a de-facto private militia, not legally affiliated with any state government. The danger they pose is that they operate beyond the UCMJ and can be used by the President to circumvent Posse-Comitatis.

This is a threat to national security, and must be dealt with decisively, and legally.

On edit: I see a danger on par with the disbanment of the Iraqi Army, but on an international scale. If handled improperly, we could end up in a situation simular to the attempted coup d'etat of FDR.

[The Stranger]

14. Why didn't she do this years ago? She's with us more and more . . .

. . . and we need her less and less.

[Lone_Star_Dem]

17. I must just be high as a kite on all the good political mojo in the Texas air.

I think it's good news that this is being addressed. I don't care why, I only care that someone is hearing us.

[Occam Bandage]

25. Oh, poor, poor Mark Penn.

[Warren Stupidity]

31. Good Idea. Obama should make the same commitment.

And he certainly should support any such measure.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

38. Obama always says, "I agree with Senator Clinton" in all the debates that's all he ever has to say

[2008]

39. Agreed

First I had a wtf moment when I read that he won't rule out using mercs, then a WTF? moment when I read this about Hillary.

Obama needs to get on the correct side of this issue.

[Bluerthanblue]

40. want an immediate DRAFT? ban private contractors- I hope Chelsea is

ready to take her rightful place among those who will be drafted-

It SUCKS, but this is fact people.

peace~

[sueragingroz]

41. and it's because of stuff like this that the MIC is trying to take her out from the left